posted on July 20, 2001 08:41:40 AM
It’s all about choice. I keep hearing this on the radio and TV, so it must be true. This is America, the land of the free, and we must protect our hard-fought right to choose. It doesn’t matter, apparently, what someone is choosing to do; the important thing is simply that each and every one of us has the right to choose anything that personally affects us.
Don’t tell me that robbery is “wrong” or “immoral”. The important thing, apparently, is that we have the right to choose whether or not to rob somebody else, and anybody who would try to take that right away from me is clearly un-American. I don’t even want to debate what actually constitutes “robbery”, since that would just distract from the central [and only important] issue, namely our right to choose.
You may not think that drug use and prostitution are particularly wholesome endeavors, but that’s irrelevant. It’s my body, and I have an absolute right to choose what to do with it. Don’t talk to me about the effect my actions might have on others, either, since that doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is my right to choose.
What if somebody feels like taking a gun and shooting their children? Surely you can support their right to choose to do so? After all, this is America, right? Does it matter that some people think that children are human beings with the same God-given rights that adults have? Well, we could certainly argue about whether young children can really be considered “people” in the first place, and whether “rights” are truly God-given or simply granted by the State. After all, it was legal to kill slaves 150 years ago [assuming they were your slaves, of course], because they were excluded from the Constitutional definition of “person”, so what makes children special? That’s wholly irrelevant to the issue, though. In fact, I’d rather not talk at all about any of the underlying issues, since people tend to get emotional and forget about the only important issue – our right to choose.
Don’t get me wrong here. I’m not pro-robbery, pro-drug, pro-prostitution, or pro-infanticide, and I really object to people who mischaracterize me as being so. After all, I’m not telling people they SHOULD rob their neighbor, take illegal drugs, become a prostitute, or kill children. I’m just saying that we should all have the right to choose to rob our neighbors, take illegal drugs, become prostitutes, or kill children if we want to, that’s all, and anybody who would deny me my right to choose is obviously un-American. Surely you can see the difference?
Now, some have accused me of playing word games, hiding behind semantics in order to support my chosen lifestyle. Time and time again, people try to debate with me the merits of robbery, drug use, prostitution and infanticide, and when I tell them that all of that is irrelevant they say that I call myself “pro-choice” in order to avoid having to discuss the morality and ramifications of those things I am actually choosing to do. Some have even said I am a coward who lacks the courage of my convictions, since I obviously cannot bear to discuss any of the underlying issues. But that’s OK. Deep down in my heart, I know I am right, and I’m sure if I say it long and loud enough I can convince everybody else that I am right as well.
After all, it’s all about “choice,” and that’s the only issue worth discussing. Or so I keep hearing....
----
OK, irony mode off.
For the record, I really don't know whether life begins at conception, birth or some other time. I don't know whether unborn fetuses should be considered "humans" or not, nor whether they should be granted any rights whatsoever. But I do think that these are important issues that need to be discussed instead of just sweeping them under the "Pro-Choice" rug.
Do I support a woman's right to choose? Yes, but not absolutely and not in all situations. I don't support a man's absolute right to choose in all situations either, as a matter of fact. We have laws against such things as murder, robbery, drug use, prostitution, etc., because society as a whole has decided that people shouldn't have the right to choose to do these things. Whether abortion is something that a woman should or should not be allowed to choose needs to be discussed instead of just hiding behind the rubric of "choice" as if it were some absolute right that needs no qualification.
When talking about the pros and cons of legalizing drugs, the debate focuses on such things as the effect certain drugs have on people, the potential costs to society, etc. It's not just about whether an individual should have the right to "choose" to take drugs. Sure, the freedom to choose is one of the issues, but it's not the only one, and nobody pretends that it is.
Similarly, a womans right to choose is certain an issue in the abortion debate, and no doubt a very important one, but it isn't the only issue. And I guess I am just getting sick and tired of being told again and again and again that it is.
Regards,
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on July 20, 2001 09:01:21 AMChoice is a fine concept. Makes a great ideal. But in practice, many people lack the proper judgment, experience, common sense, etc. to be making choices that can drastically, and often irrevocably, affect the lives of innocent parties. Too often choices are made on the basis of immediate self-gratification, or convenience. While these may seem reasonable justifications to the person making the choice, they may actually be petty and selfish when compared to the severity of the outcome. Nevertheless, they make their choices, and others are made to suffer for the sake of someone exercising their rights.
posted on July 20, 2001 09:27:45 AMBarry-You have made some very good points. I really don't know what is "right" and what is "wrong" in such cases. Even though your topic is concerning "pro-choice" which I think many see as the "abortion issue", I did have another "thought" pop in my head....There are people who do not want children and there are people who do want children. Both can be desperate and that desperation can lead them to drastic measures.
At the risk of throwing this "off topic", many feel "abortion" is wrong. What about invitro fertilization or the use of fertility drugs? In many instances, when there are more fertilized eggs than needed or more embryos than are desired or considered "healthy" they are simply disposed or frozen. I have found myself wondering about that.
I wonder if those who take extrodinary measures to become pregnant think flushing the "extras" down the drain or freezing them or using them in research or "selectively" removing them is wrong?
If unborn fetuses do have "rights", do they cover those "conceived" in a dish or those that are "forced" into "existance" by drugs?
Where does one draw the line? Just who gets to draw that line?
posted on July 20, 2001 09:29:09 AM
Thanks, Barry. One seldom sees the reductio ad absurdum so seamlessly joined to the fallacy of the false analogy.
For the record, I really don't know whether life begins at conception, birth or some other time. I don't know whether unborn fetuses should be considered "humans" or not, nor whether they should be granted any rights whatsoever. But I do think that these are important issues that need to be discussed instead of just sweeping them under the "Pro-Choice" rug.
"Sweeping the under the Pro-choice rug" can be replaced by "Holding them aloft under the banner of Anti-choice self-righteousness" and the paragraph is equally valid as an observation. And the central problem, IMO, is that the arguments put forth by the intransigents on both sides of the issue are actually just backfilling their emotional take on the issue rather than being put forward as a rational basis for their belief systems.
Be that as it may, and realizing that the following can easily be characterized as my own backfilling...
These are my three favorite thought problems / questions / observations on the issue:
There ain't no such thing as "the moment of conception". It is a convenient fiction. Is it when the sperm contacts the egg cell wall? Is it when the sperm penetrates the egg cell wall? Is it when the genetic material comes into proximity such that meiosis can begin? If one takes a stand which involves "the moment of conception", it's important to define the term. Saying that it's somewhere around then or it's obviously not important exactly when it is serves to show the vacousness of that particular stand. It's perceived as a defensible line to draw, but it's a line which does not exist.
Further, suppose we have access to some hi-tech device which allows one to see the progress of that one valiant sperm as it approaches the egg; at the moment that they are a millimeter apart, when the moment of conception (whatever that is) is fractions of a second away, we drop a wall between them. Fertilization was inevitable before our intervention; now it has been prevented. Have we killed?
Finally: what if it were discovered that eating a hefty piece of rhubarb pie, three times a day, would induce spontaneous abortion? Would it be morally wrong for a woman to eat rhubarb pie? Would it be reasonable to prohibit its consumption by pregnant women? Or would the fact that God put rhubarb on the planet and the fact that it's a natural product acting in a natural process make it somehow acceptable?
posted on July 20, 2001 09:41:57 AMsulyn1950: Well, my point is that issues such as those you bring up need to actually be discussed. With regard to abortion, it's not enough to simply say "a woman should have the right to have an abortion because of her inalienable right to choose". There is no such thing as an inalienable right to choose. What needs to be discussed is the pros and cons of abortion, and whether abortion is something that we, as a society, should be made available.
The fact that Roe vs. Wade was decided years agao, BTW, does not close the door on the discussion, any more than the [in]famous Dredd Scott decision that ruled that slaves were property closed the door on the slavery debate. Laws can change, as can Supreme Court decisions, to meet the changing views of society.
---
Just as the "pro-lifers" are wrong to focus exclusively on the issue of whether an unborn fetus is "alive" or not, the "pro-choicers" are wrong to focus exclusively on the issue of a woman's "right to choose". Both issues need to be discussed by both sides of the debate, instead of simply redefining the terms to automatically exclude the other side's opinion.
However, since it's the pro-choice movement that has been bombarding me lately with its flurry of print, radio and TV ads, they're the ones that bear the brunt of this particular rant....
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on July 20, 2001 09:48:34 AM
Why do people who oppose abortion seem to always choose to align it with the most heinous acts they can conceive of (OK you left out genocide, but I'm sure you can work in in later), which have absolutely no bearing on the topic of abortion, except that they feel that abortion is comparable to these acts.
They tell me how hard they are trying to be open-minded.
Why don't you compare it to building a space lab? Compare it to writing the Great American Novel? Compare it to the Manifest Destiny of Peru?
These are at least as valid as your comparisons. But no, you chose prostitution & infanticide(says something about what you think of women & abortions doesn't it?), murder & robbery. All events we consider to be criminal. Thanks. I appreciate your effort to be fair.
It's probably apparent that I am for a woman's right to choose, not 100%, with absolutely no contol at all, but I have to name myself pro-choice because for the most part, the rhetoric of others don't allow me to call myself anything else. And I fear, actually fear, the ability of others who can take my middle ground and turn it into something I never intended.
How many of us are aware of the recent case 12yr old girl in Mexico raped by her father, pregnant by him, and refused an abortion by the Mexican government. I'm sure that there is anti-abortion logic which makes this sound like a pregnancy that should come to fruition, but I'm unable to see it. Likely my "right to choose" attitude keeps me from seeing the plus-side of paternal rape + pregnancy.
See, I can do it too, think of the most heinous abhorent worst case scenario and base my case on it.
posted on July 20, 2001 09:49:30 AMI wonder if those who take extrodinary measures to become pregnant think flushing the "extras" down the drain or freezing them or "selectively" removing them is wrong?
Personally I think it's wrong, because I believe that life begins at conception. I am also strongly opposed to using those fertilized embryos as a source of stem cells. Christopher Reeve, Michael J. Fox and Mary Tyler Moore want us to believe stem cell research is the best thing since sliced bread, but they speak from self-interest, not out of any great concern for the unborn.
I suspect that if the federal funding for stem cell legislation passes, it will put the seal of approval on this Nazi-like research and before long (if it hasn't started already) certain clinics will start fertilizing eggs for no other reason than to supply stem cells. The fact that that innocent human lives will be destroyed in the process will be of little or no importance.
But getting back to your original question: I know people who have gone through in vitro. They tend to brush their feelings about "selective reduction" under the carpet, preferring to focus instead on the one that lived. Pretty soon they probably forget about it, as it is far easier not to think about such questions.
posted on July 20, 2001 09:50:28 AM
Roofguy - If I were insisting that life began at the moment of birth and that anyone who disagreed with me was morally bankrupt, then defining "moment of birth" would indeed be important. I'm not taking that position, so that's not relevant. If, on the other hand, a person is going to insist that the "moment of conception" be defined as the beginning of human life, it seems reasonable to expect them to define just what the heck they mean by that.
-gaffan-
posted on July 20, 2001 09:55:34 AM
Why does this need to be discussed? The only discussion that really needs to take place is the one between the woman and her doctor. Maybe her significant other depending on the situation. That's all. I can discuss till I am blue but I cannot choose for another nor do I want to.I don't want the government doing it either.
posted on July 20, 2001 09:59:55 AM
I get a laugh from the "my right to choose" euphemism, which tries to make it sound like a positive thing. Why not call it what it really is -- "my right to destroy a life growing inside me."
posted on July 20, 2001 10:13:04 AM
Just on a quick read-through, it seems to me there might be something wrong with your premise, Godzillatemple.
"I’m just saying that we should all have the right to choose to rob our neighbors, take illegal drugs, become prostitutes, or kill children if we want to, that’s all, and anybody who would deny me my right to choose is obviously un-American."
Well, yes. The opposite of choice isn't deterrance, it's prevention, isn't it? We have laws in place that we hope will *deter* people from choosing to rob their neighbors, kill their children, etc. In order to remove a person's ability to choose, you have to prevent them from being able to make that choice, not merely deter them from making it.
"We have laws against such things as murder, robbery, drug use, prostitution, etc., because society as a whole has decided that people shouldn't have the right to choose to do these things."
Well, no, that's wrong. Society has decided that people should be *deterred* from making those choices, the ability (or right) to choose them remains.
Is that an important distinction? If you're setting up a discussion about "choice," I think it might be.
posted on July 20, 2001 10:17:58 AMIf, on the other hand, a person is going to insist that the "moment of conception" be defined as the beginning of human life, it seems reasonable to expect them to define just what the heck they mean by that.
I observe a dichotomy which characterises American opinion regarding the abortion question.
Some believe that life begins at conception.
Some believe that life begins at birth.
While some might use the word "moment" in their statement regarding the beginning of life, I don't think they really care if it's concisely described or not. The debate is well understood without such a definition, we all know what both sides are saying.
posted on July 20, 2001 10:30:19 AMvictoria: Why do people who oppose abortion seem to always choose to align it with the most heinous acts they can conceive of?
I think you must have been reading somebody else's post, Victoria, although your defensiveness does tend to illustrate my point. My examples were chosen, not because of their heinousness, but for their relevance.
I chose the example of robbery because, just like the question of when life begins, it can be a bit hard to define. Sure, there are clear-cut examples [holding up a bank with a gun, say], but there are also plenty of gray examples. If I take a friends bicyle, "knowing" that he would have given permission to borrow it had I asked, have I "robbed" him? What if I am wrong in my belief that he would have given permission? What if I returned it to him before he noticed it was gone?
I chose the examples of drug use and prostitution because they both involve doing something to one's own body, which is what the pro-choice movement seems to feel is the crucial distinction with abortion. There is a very strong movement in America to legalize drugs, or at least certain ones such as Marijuana, and I certainly wouldn't call this a "heinous" act.
As for infanticide, that example was chosen to emphasize the role that location plays in the abortion debate. By law, a fetus is not a "human" while it is still within its mother's womb, but the moment it leaves the womb it is granted full legal protection. And it's irrelevant how old the fetus is at the time of birth. A child that is born 6 weeks premature is legally human the moment it emerges, while a child that is still in the womb after 9 1/2 months is not legally human until it emerges. The fact that you consider infanticide "heinous" but not abortion is simply a reflection of your personal beliefs as to when a child becomes a person, and I used this example to point out that the distinction between an unborn fetus and an infant is not necessarily a clearly defined one.
Believe it or not, I am not a rabid "right-to-lifer". But I do think the "pro-life" movement is a little more honest when it comes to discussing the issues. Most pro-lifers that I know acknowledge that a woman should have a right to choose what happens to her own body. But they also feels that this is not an absolute right and that an unborn fetus's right to life takes precedence. They may be completely and utterly wrong in their belief that a fetus has a superior right, but that's exactly the point that is up for debate. The pro-choicers I know, however, refuse to even acknowledge the issue of whether an unborn fetus might be considered a human being or have the right to live, preferring instead to frame the debate solely in terms of a woman's right to choose.
Again, I don't pretend to know all the answers [or even some of them]. But there are important issues that need to be discussed, and I hate seeing them glossed over as "irrlevant" by those who don't seem to have the courage of their convictions.
It's not just about the right to choose. It's about the right to choose to have an abortion. And any debate on the subject needs to include a discussion of abortion instead of just focusing on choice.
Donny: The opposite of choice isn't deterrance, it's prevention, isn't it?
You're absolutely correct, but I was trying to phrase my examples using the standard "pro-choice" rhetoric. Even if abortions were made wholly illegal, women would still be able to choose to have them. They would simply be "deterred". But by labeling themseves "pro-choice", people imply that the other side would somehow force women to bear children. Which is, of course, not the case.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on July 20, 2001 11:05:17 AM
Actually, roofguy, I think you'd be hard pressed to find many people who contend that life begins at birth.
And whereas it is convenient to brush away the question of what the moment of conception is, that doesn't mean it's irrelevant; it's merely inconvenient to define.
In any case, the underlying problem lies in our (humans in general) tendency to break processes into separate and distinct states.
Thus an invention such as "moment of conception" is hailed as a clear dividing line between very separate things, when in fact it cannot be defined and therefore cannot be a dividing line at all.
Regardless of my beliefs or yours, none of us knows when human life begins, and that is the crux of the debate: whether the belief that _human_ life begins at "conception" should be imposed as a fact, instituted in law, upon everyone, regardless of their beliefs.
posted on July 20, 2001 11:09:59 AM
First of all I want to say I do not like abortion. I think it is a horrible solution to a perceived "problem". So because of my belief, I personally will never consider having an abortion. And being a guy makes it sort of a moot point. But as for the woman standing next to me, it is none of my damn business. It is her belief, it is something she will have to live with. It is her HUMAN RIGHTS and nobody has the right to FORCE their beliefs on her.
One thing I do notice about the war between the Pro-Choicers and Pro-Lifers. If they were to work together to elimate unwanted pregnancies, abortion would be virtually wiped out in a few years. Education at an early age and contraception starting at puberty would put these doctors out of business and eliminate the constant debate.
But it wouldn't get your picture on TV and we all know, that is all that is important...
posted on July 20, 2001 11:15:44 AM
When and if there is ever a safe one hundred percent effective method of birth control (other than sterilization) available to young women, then I'll become anti-abortion. And don't suggest abstinence, because married women elect abortions also.
When and if every child on the planet goes to bed fed and loved...
When and if every man who has ever fathered a child and every woman who has ever give birth act like responsible human beings and take care of them...
When and if every politician can prove they are smarter than their constituents...
When those things happen, I'll become anti-abortion.
But never will I believe that the "unborn" have more rights than the born. Good grief. Forcing women to have unwanted children is barbaric. It's just another patriarchal trip laid on people by the very patriachal Christian Right. By the way, in countries where abortion is illegal, usually the highest incidence of death in women of child-bearing age is illegal abortions. And some people want that here in America. What a crying shame.
posted on July 20, 2001 11:39:01 AMActually, roofguy, I think you'd be hard pressed to find many people who contend that life begins at birth.
Maybe life isn't the proper term. Clearly the fetus is alive.
The archtypical success of civilization as we know it is the dignity of an individual. Civilization keeps us from whimsically killing one another.
It's not surprising that we find debates regarding marginal cases where that dignity is violated, places where the boundary is imprecise.
In the abortion example, we're not sure when we have an "individual", with some selecting birth, some selecting conception, and a few civilized people finding infanticide acceptable, up to some later point, seldom more than a year. THOSE are the people with a definition problem, as I see it.
posted on July 20, 2001 12:07:01 PM
I suppose that it is the right of men to chose to discuss an issue that has very little to do with them unless they are the impregnating partner of a woman who exercizes her choice not to continue the pregnancy, but it sure seems prissy and irrelevant to me.
posted on July 20, 2001 12:10:40 PMsadie999: I realize this is an emotional issue, but I think it's wrong to talk about "forcing women to have unwanted children," and that's EXACTLY the problem I have with the Pro-Choice rhetoric. Making abortions illegal doesn't "force" anybody to do anything. It simply provides a strong deterrent against having an abortion. Women would still be free to avoid pregnancy in the first place, or give children up for adoption, or yes, even have illegal abortions. Making arbotions illegal no more forces women to have unwanted children than making abortons legal forces women NOT to have unwanted children.
And yes, I fully realize that there are gray areas, such as rape, where a woman does not become pregant voluntarily. But even then, the woman is not "forced" to have the child. So to say that "pro-lifers" want to remove a woman's ability to choose is rarther disingenuous in my opinion.
"But never will I believe that the 'unborn' have more rights than the born"
Two responses to that. First, you need to keep in mind that not all rights are created equal. My right to free speech, for example, can be legitimately restricted if my speech would cause harm to others [the old "shouting fire in a crowded theater" example]. Is a fetus's right to life greater than the mother's right to life? Some might think so, but most would probably say no. Is it at least as important? Again, some would say both have an equal right to life, but most would probably say no. The question, though, is whether a fetus's right to life takes precedence over a mother's right to privacy [or her right to choose what she does with her body, if you prefer]. These are two completely different types of rights, and whether one person's right to life is more important than another person's right to privacy and self actualization may be less clear cut than you would have us believe. Assuming, of course, that a fetus can even be considered a "person" with a right to life, but that's one of the issues that needs to be discussed.
My second response is simply that you are perfectly entitled to your opinion on the subject. I may or may not agree with you that the unborn have any more rights [or even the same rights] than the born, but the important thing is to at least discuss THAT issue instead of just avoiding it and saying it is irrelevant. The fact that you disagree with somebody on an important issue doesn't suddenly make the issue nonimportant. It just emphasizes the fact that the issue has more than one side to it.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on July 20, 2001 12:29:15 PM"By the way, in countries where abortion is illegal, usually the highest incidence of death in women of child-bearing age is illegal abortions. And some people want that here in America. What a crying shame."
Unfortunately the "back ally" abortionist are not a thing of the past in American even in today's time!
Many Drs/hospitals will not perform abortions. There are clinics, but they are not readily available to all people in all areas. Sometimes (I know of 1) out of sheer desperation and inability to travel long distances, some women still seek out alternatives. Often, with serious consequences.
I personally don't believe in abortion, but I have never been in a position where considering it became something I personally had to face. I also realize there are woman that do have to face this and I wouldn't really want to have to make that decision for them. I have often wondered how many of those "pro-life" protesters would be willing to tell such women, if they choice to not have the abortion, they personally would take that child and raise it as their own. I don't think that happens often, if at all. Instead, they just yell and scream and hold up signs and make a lot of noise...they don't offer any real suggestions or solutions. They don't seem to be willing to put their money where their mouths are and they loose credibility as far as I'm concerned.
Let me ask: if you are against abortion and wanted them stopped and someone came to you and told you they were going to have one, what would you do? Would you try and talk them out of it? Would you offer financial assistance? Would you offer to take the child? We can all have opinions. Most of us do have opinions. Most of us voice our opinions, but we don't really do anything about those opinions.
Too bad we can't find a way to put those that desperately don't want babies with those that do. Then, we wouldn't have babies aborted and we wouldn't have "babies" grown in dishes with the excess being destroyed, exploited or frozen.
edited in lieu of an additional post.
[ edited by sulyn1950 on Jul 20, 2001 01:00 PM ]
OK. That being solved for me, I wanted to say that choice that affects just oneself is a very fine arguement -- especially when the speaker cannot or does not acknowledge that being in a society, what we do or fail to do usually does affect others.
For instance, a best friend of mine is a Libertarian and strongly believes in the total legalization of all drugs and the useage thereof; although he himself stopped doing drugs some years back. He argues that doing any drug affects only the person taking it. And that we need to trust people who use drugs for recreational purposes to have good judgement and to allow people to take responsibility for their own actions.
Have you ever heard such a load of crap before?
While I do not want to shift this into a pro- and con- drugs legalization debate, I only want to point out that the moment that a person chooses to imbibe a drug for recreational purposes, they are most often affecting someone else's life. If a person wants to go live as a hermit up in the Rocky Mountains and never see anyone except his or her drug dealer and do their thing and on the mountainside away from society and stay there, then that would be an exception for me. Otherwise, choice has to be limited.
posted on July 20, 2001 12:42:26 PM
Roe v. Wade wasn't about choice, it was about whether the government has the power to be involved in reproductive issues.
There is a line of cases "leading" to Roe v Wade. One of them was about the right to purchase condoms - in some states birth control was illegal. There were also cases which allowed the forced sterilization of "retarded" people.
What the Supreme Court had to first address in the abortion issue was the power of the government to exercise power, any power, in human reproduction. If the government had oversight to say you can not have abortion, then it also had the oversight that you must have an abortion- just like in China.
The Court basically said that the government can not operate within these realms of privacy. Privacy meaning not "secrecy", but rather an absence of interference by government.
For those who wish to see Roe v Wade overturned, be careful what you wish for. While you may give the government the right to control abortion, you also give government the right to force people to have abotions.
While you may think that it would never happen, just giving the government that power is enough to ensure that at some point it will be exercised. It may be a drug addict's fetus, it may be a poor person's genetically defective child that will cost medicade millions of dollars, it may be government population control measure. It could also be birth control placed in water and food supplies. Overturning Roe v Wade is what will allow these types of things.
It is best to keep the power out of government hands. Roe v Wade has far greater meaning and reach than just "choice".
posted on July 20, 2001 12:50:25 PM
RU486 would be a fine alternative to later surgical intervention, if it were readily available. Also, way cheaper. Could it be that's what is holding its approval up?
Painless, non-invasive, inexpensive...yet anathema to the right-to-lifers, as well. Maybe partially because they couldn't get into any gory photography to horrify the folks into taking their position.
posted on July 20, 2001 12:52:07 PMsulyn1950: Unfortunately the "back ally" abortionist are not a thing of the past in American even in today's time!
You're absolutely right. And the fact that some women may die as a result of having illegal abortions is definitely a part of the whole abortion issue that needs to be discussed. But there's a big difference between discussing the pros and cons of the issue, as well as the relative costs, and simply stating that making abortions illegal will "force women to have unwanted children".
Whether access to safe and easy abortions should be made available to everybody who wants one is certainly worth discussing, and that discussion needs to include such issues as what will happen to women who are likely to have an abortion anyway even if it is not safe and easy. But saying that it's all about "choice" and whether a woman should be "forced" to do something just avoids discussing the issue alltogether.
I have often wondered how many of those "pro-life" protesters would be willing to tell such women, if they choice to not have the abortion, they personally would take that child and raise it as their own.
Errrr... you are aware that any child born in the U.S. can be put up for adoption, right? The alternative to abortion isn't necessarily raising the child yourself. Is a child better off being raised in an orphanage without a loving family or not being born at all? I don't know, but it's certainly another issue that deserves discussion.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on July 20, 2001 01:13:57 PM"Errrr... you are aware that any child born in the U.S. can be put up for adoption, right? The alternative to abortion isn't necessarily raising the child yourself. Is a child better off being raised in an orphanage without a loving family or not being born at all? I don't know, but it's certainly another issue that deserves discussion."
Barry-Yes, adoption is a available, but I was really wondering how many people, who steadfastly fight against a woman's right to have an abortion, would be willing to personally take a child. Kinda a "put up or shut up" challenge. Would it make a difference?
Also, do you think that all babies that are currently aborted would actually be adopted by someone. I live in Texas and I am ashamed to say, I don't know if we even have orphanages! We do have homes for troubled children. We do have foster parent programs for unwanted, neglected or abused children, but I don't really know if we have any orphanages that take babies and keep them until they are adopted or reach adulthood!
I wonder how many other people don't know that about their area or state?
bad grammer/spelling...sorry
[ edited by sulyn1950 on Jul 20, 2001 01:21 PM ]
posted on July 20, 2001 01:15:43 PMMaybe partially because they couldn't get into any gory photography to horrify the folks into taking their position.
I don't know any radical pro-lifers, but I'm guessing the reason they object to RU486 is probably not quite so superficial. More reasonable to conclude that their objections are based in the belief that life begins with fertilization of the egg.
We do have homes for troubled children. We do have foster parent programs for unwanted, neglected or abused children, but I don't really know if we have any orphanages that take babies and keep them until they are adopted or reach adulthood!